October Term 2022 · Docket 145 ORIG.

Does the 1974 federal law require banks to report unclaimed checks to the state where the customer lives?

Delaware argues the law mandates reporting to the customer's home state. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin say the law only covers specific check types.

Official caption
Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Delaware's counsel argued the statute solves a collection problem.

    Pennsylvania's counsel argued the text limits coverage to bank checks.

    Justices questioned the definition of similar instruments.

    Justices asked about the practical impact of the rule.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of a 1974 federal statute. The law addresses unclaimed financial instruments. States disagree on which instruments the law covers. The dispute centers on statutory interpretation. The Court must define the term used in the statute. This definition determines which state receives the funds.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Delaware wants the Court to apply the law to all unclaimed checks.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin want the Court to limit the law to specific check types.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Delaware argues the statute aims to fix a common law gap.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin argue the statute uses specific terms that exclude some checks.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Jackson asked if the statute breaks from common law.

Chief Justice Roberts asked about the total value of different check types.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines which state collects unclaimed funds. It affects state revenue and consumer access to money. It clarifies federal preemption of state escheat laws. It impacts financial institutions' reporting obligations.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON